The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-09-11
PROFIT OF PROHIBITION.
The Liquor Problem Discussed by
NAL. George Is. Fleece.
The Question OF Natural Right
Legality of Prohibttion-ffg-
ures TO SHOW what the
State would Gain.

nessee, by majority of its voters,
will decide this question:: Shall the
State undertake to suppress the
great evil OF intemperance by an
amendment of the constitution pro-
hibiting in the State the sale of in-
toxicating liquors as a beverage.
The amendment proposed is simple
In its terms, and limited to the sale
Of Intoxicating liquors as bever-
age. The right to use, the right to
manufacture, the right to give, the
right to sell for medicinal or me-
chanical purposes is not touched by
the amendment proposed.
We may fairly assume that the OBJ
ject sought to be accomplished, to.
wit: the suppression OF the great evil
OF intemperanoe in the use OF iptoxi-
eating liquors, is most bene6cent and
praiseworthy, for indeed the cause
of intemperance has not single
sane and honorable advocate on
earth-ior it is the universally sd
mitted monster evil known in hui
man history.
SO we assume that If prohibition
should accomplish the end proposed
and leave unaffected all other ends
and interests, social, pecuniary and
political, the amendment would be
adopted by vote practically unani.
nous. SO much we assume out Of
an abiding faith in the honor, the
humanity, and the decency of our
race and citizenship as a whole
But, dealing fairly with the grave
questions, we must admit that prac.
tically considered il is encumbere1
with many complications which
ought to be considered and allowed
their full weight and worth as ele.
ments entering into the problem Of
prohibition. The objections to pro,
hibition, so far as heretofore ex.
pressed, are the following--somC
grave, some frivolous, some ridicu
lous:
First-It is claimed that the mode
OF amendment is not in conformity
with constitutional mode Of amend
ing the organic law, and therefor,
would be imperative, null aud vote
even alter majority vote in il
favor.
To this ! reply that both Houses
oil our State LEGISLATURE have twic,
concurred in submitting this queS
ton to the people-both House,
have by solemn enactment provided
the mode-thus raising q presump
ton OF regularity AID legality in the
legislative mode adopted too stronl
10 be surrendered upon the mer,
suggestion OF illegalitY made by SOM
able jurists and denied BY others o
equal legal reputation and ability.
But il, after all, the mode OF en-
acting into law an amendment 10 tn
constitution shall prove to be illegal
null and void, then the amepdmen
will fail, and this will he the end o
il. But pending the final adjudicl
\ ton OF this question, II would be tn
duty OF every Prohibitionist TO g
j 10 the polls and record his name q
= the side Of his convictions, for Will
his vote might be counted for naugh
in legal efficacy, the cause woul
gain at least his moral support AM
this much, to-wit: Moral support {
cause that all must admit 20 b
most beueicent in its objec, is sol
emily obligatory on every man VIII
feels and recognises the simplest dis
tipctions between right and wron.
Sccond-It is CHARGED by anti
prohibiuonists that the prohibitio
by law OF the sale &C liquor As
beverage would be violation Of con
stitutionil rights, Of natural an
inalicnablo rights, ard Of the fupdu
mental principles Of the Democrat
party.
Here we enter an arena upo
which are arrayed TODAY the Who'll
army Of freedom shriekerS Of th
civilized and semi-civilizcd worl'
the leadership, the rank and file ,
revolutionists, socialists. commu'
lists, nihilists. and iollowcfs Of thi
most dangerous movement lead
Henry George, Of New York.
Mr.. Bond, Of Brownsville, in h
argument against prohibition, la'e
published in The APPEAL, says N
movement by Henry George and ID
McGlynn for socialism should NAL
men stop and think. and 10. indee
II should. SO. too, should tho
xindrcd movements in Germany an
! France and Russia 10 which he r
- iers a. "evidencing the march
progress and civilization" NAL
men stop and think" What a
they all what Do they all mcar
Why. the very basis, principle
assumption upon which they .
stand il that very extravagant clai
Of human riEhts, natural and /
alieuable. under which Mr.. Boz
prQnounces prohibition an hiring
ment upon natural aud constitution
rights and the bascr principles
true Democracy.
Henry GEORGE extends the area
individual aud inalienable rights
the extent OF denying 10 the COVER
ment the right 10 guarantee by CO
stitutioual sanction the right II Il
present owners oi land 10 real ests
acquired by them by gift or purcha,
so broad and sweeping are hum
natural and inslieoable rights N
the whole record Of title shI
be obliteratod and tho vast donna
Of our country redistributed up
the basis Of equal ownership, n
that with no consideration but Nh
Of citizenship. go. too, tho Eur
pean branch Of the srmy Of pro
rcss marches on. keeping step wi
every kindred order in this count
nihilisls and anarchists in the LEI
.hrieking for universal freedom q
equality, and set ing M the most 9
travarant and imptacticable olail
OF rights. natural and inalienab
and eliminating with the natur
logical and irrepressible ultimate
Of IL all, the denial Of any risht At
where 20 institute ard maintain a
governmental control over any m
on earth.
No man can deny that the Writ
assertios Of Mr.. Bond that the rio